[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The iguanodont paper
Tim Williams writes:
I was only stating that it was evolution itself that derived birds from dinosaurs.
That's assuming that you define 'bird' as being a distinct group apart from,
or sub-group within, 'dinosaurs'. A broader definition of 'dinosaur' would
always include birds, in which case 'birds' aren't really 'derived' from
'dinosaurs', since they still *are* dinosaurs.
It would be like saying sauropods were derived from dinosaurs.
Physiologically they were probably as far removed from other dinosaur groups
as birds are - perhaps even more so. Put a sauropod, a non-avian theropod,
an ornithopod and a bird all in a row and see which one looks like the
It all depends on where you draw the line between groups, which is an
arbitrary thing at best. It seems that only us humans feel the need to
categorise things into discrete (and completely arbitrary) units - which can
be frustrating in a universe that is really one big fuzzy continuum.
GIS / Archaeologist geo cities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia heretichides.soffiles.com